3DSHU�IRU�SUHVHQWDWLRQ�DW�WKH��UG�(&35�&RQIHUHQFH�LQ�%XGDSHVW��+XQJDU\������WK�6HSWHPEHU�������6HFWLRQ����5HJXODWLRQ�LQ�WKH�$JH�RI�*RYHUQDQFH���

3DQHO ���%HKLQG�DQG�%H\RQG�WKH�%RUGHU���5HJXODWLRQ�LQ�WKH�,QWHUQDWLRQDO�&RQWH[W��

2Q�WKH�HPHUJHQFH�RI�D�WUDQVQDWLRQDO�UHJXODWRU\�IUDPHZRUN��IRU SXEOLF�VHUYLFHV�LQ�(XURSH�±�ZKDW�UHJXODWLRQ��DQG�LQ�ZKRVH�LQWHUHVWV" ��

-XGLWK�&OLIWRQ��8QLY�2YLHGR��)UDQFLVFR�&RPtQ��8QLY�$OFDOi��

'DQLHO 'tD]�)XHQWHV��8QLY�&DQWDEULD��

*A revised version of this paper is to be published in

Public Management Review, Fall 2005.

%$&.*5281'�

From the post-war model of supply-led (by public monopolies), top-down public

service provision to all citizens within a nationally bound territory, public

services have been subject to dramatic change, especially from the 1990s.

From 1992, the internal market was consolidated, whilst political union was also

put onto the agenda with the signing of the Treaty of Maastricht. These

developments have had significant consequences for public services, including

sectoral liberalization and de(re)regulation of these services and the

privatisation and transnationalization of public corporations. Public service

provider transnationalisation means that these activities have become some of

the most important transnational corporations (TNCs) in the world. Today,

European public service providers make up one third of the UNCTAD´s list of

the top fifty TNCs worldwide. The UNCTAD (World Investment Report 2003 and

2004) list included among them: Vodafone, France Telecom, Vivendi Universal,

Deutsche Telekom, E.On, RWE Group, Electricité de France, Telefonica, Eni

Group, Deutsche Post World Net, Endesa and so on. Ten years ago none of

these companies were ranked, so the development is important. From being

considered the ´ugly ducklings´ of the 1980s, certain public service corporations

appear to be evolving as the ´swans´ “new industrial champions” at the turn of

the century.

In face of global and regional integration, the need for a supranational

coordinated regulatory response is becoming clearer at the citizen-consumer,

corporate, industrial, national and global levels. In the case of the EU, calls for

supranational regulation have emerged in parallel to the transformation of public

services. This article analyses the development of the European Union (EU)

attempts to develop a supranational regulatory framework for public services.

This effort has been most seriously articulated in the Green Paper on Services

of General Interest (SGI) in 2003, the White Paper on SGI in 2004, and the

inclusion of SGI in the draft European Constitution (2004). Particular attention

will be placed on critiquing the new trans-regulatory framework in particular in

regard to its emphasis on business and the consumer vis-à-vis the citizen and

traditional public service obligations.

In order to critically analyse this new supranational regulatory framework

for public services in terms of its evolution, content, implementation and results,

a comparative approach will be adopted inspired by Pollitt´s four-stage model of

international public management reform. Since the new regulatory framework

for SGI was originally articulated as a public service charter, it is logical to

therefore compare this to the well-known Anglo-Saxon experiences.

Though there are important similarities linking the charter initiatives in the

EU and the Anglo-Saxon world, there are also a number of important

differences, which can be explained by the project to construct a supranational

political citizenship, as well as vital institutional differences in capabilities related

to EU competences and issues of governance. Though public service charters

are often associated with New Public Management (NPM) reforms related to

privatisation, which have been particularly influential in the Anglo-Saxon

countries, they are also an integral part of the process of EU institution building,

and need to be understood alongside developments such as the Charter of

Fundamental Rights.

7+(25(7,&$/�)5$0(:25.�

Public service charters, in particular their Anglo-Saxon variants, are generally

understood as a managerial tool designed to render public services more

responsive to the direct users of their products or services, by seeking to

transform the culture of service delivery, focusing ´bottom-up´ on the needs of

users, and offering consumer guarantees to quality public services. A virtuous

circle is created whereby tax-paying citizens are ´empowered´ with more

knowledge about the quality of public services and corresponding means to

redress their grievances, whilst those who provide public services are offered

incentives to improve performance, transparency and responsiveness to

changing customer needs and expectations. The so-called Citizen´s Charter in

the UK ironically pioneered the forging of consumer rights onto citizenship

(Walsh 1994, Falconer and Ross 1999). In guaranteeing consumer rights to

standards in service delivery, a substitute for market competition was created.

In turn, this enabled benchmarks to be set, so that charter success could be

measured using performance monitoring against specified standards (such as

user surveys) and complaint mechanisms. Service charters are, therefore,

associated with the spirit and practice of New Public Management (Hood 1991).

Charter initiatives were pioneered in the UK in the wake of a broader

privatisation programme. The Citizen´s Charter (1991), introduced by John

Major, was of special relevance when it was deemed that privatisation, in the

traditional sense of transferring ownership from public to private hands, was

neither feasible nor desirable. The OECD think tank, the Public Management

Committee (PUMA), was established to promote the exchange and transfer of

these innovative practices worldwide (PUMA 1996, 1997). Service charters

were adopted by the ´core´ NPM community, namely, Australia, Canada, New

Zealand and the United States (Common 1998). Public management reform

also advanced throughout many countries across continental Europe (Pollitt and

Bouckaert 2004).

The seemingly rapid spread since the early 1990s of both NPM

techniques in general, and service charters in particular, has given rise to

increasing interest as to whether there is a ´global convergence´ towards a

universal managerial model, as first suggested by authors such as Aucoin

(1990) and Osborne and Gaebler (1992).i The weight of the empirical evidence,

however, suggests that a simple convergence explanation is over simplistic at

best, or inaccurate, at worst. This conclusion is derived from two main and inter-

related factors. First, from the outset, attempts to formulate and categorise NPM

have been H[ SRVW��It is not surprising, therefore, that early definitions, such as

the classic formulation by Hood (1991), are being substantially reworked in the

light of more than a decade of unfolding management practices (Gruening

2001, Thynne 2003, McLaughlin, Osborne and Ferlie 2005). Second, much of

the comparative work points to the uneven influence of NPM worldwide.

Furthermore, even where NPM techniques are implemented, while there may to

be common trends, particularly, perhaps, in the ideological and discursive

approach, often, the actual strategies, priorities, methods, styles used and

outcomes produced differ substantially (Kickert and Beck Jørgensen 1995,

Flynn and Strehl 1996, Hood 1996, Cheung 1997, Kickert 1997, Lane 1997,

2000, Peters 1997, Mathiasen 1999, Hood 2000, McGuire 2002, Pollitt and

Bouckaert 2004, Osborne and McLaughlin 2005, Pollitt 2005, Schedler and

Proeller 2005). Comparative approaches of NPM attempt to explain or frame

these differences, often locating causality in diverse cultural contexts, including

different public sector arrangements, government capabilities and structures, as

well as path dependency, among others factors. Some analysts go even further,

and claim that the uneven spread and influence of public management reforms

is so great that NPM can no longer be said to have a consistent set of values

and principles (Newman 2002), or, as Pollitt´s (2000) metaphor teases, that the

NPM Emperor is almost naked. Hood, recognised by most as the father of NPM

analysis, has suggested the term has outlived its analytical usefulness at the

hands of concept overstretching (Hood, 2000).

The same debate is also dominant in much of the literature on service

charters. While Nikos (2002) is correct in stating that charter initiatives have

been adopted in a large number of European countries (Belgium, Finland,

France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK), his

conclusion that this amounts to a convergence of charterism D Oi�$XFRLQ must

be questioned, and considered alongside conclusions reached by analysts

comparing charterism in detail in two or more countries. Here, findings reveal

both important commonalities as well as differences in ideology, practice and

performance. Clarke´s (2000) comparative analysis of the UK´s Citizen´s

Charter (1991) and France´s�&KDUWH�GHV�6HUYLFHV�3XEOLFV�(1992) concludes

that, in contrast to the UK experience, French charterism was less about public

service consumerism and more about the reassertion of the Republican

principle of egalitarianism, which ensured that users would be placed on a more

equal footing and discrimination would not be tolerated. Different public service

regimes acted as filters transforming reform ideas into various practices.

Shiavo´s (2000) comparison of British and Italian charterism also ascribes

deeply cultural specific factors, including legal traditions, as helping to

contribute to the different ways in which charterism developed in both countries.

Even McGuire´s (2002) comparative study of charterism in the ´core NPM

community´(Australia, the UK and the US in this case) concludes that policy

transfer, not convergence, occurred, and the (different) timing, content and

development of charters in each country are best explained through national

policy-making traditions. Comparative analysis shows that, behind the façade of

a ´global trend´ towards the convergence of both NPM techniques in general,

and service charters in particular, lies an enormous complexity of ideas,

practices, philosophies, intents, actors and contexts.

This article seeks to contribute to the ongoing debate about the evolution

of NPM in general, and of service charters, in particular, by analysing the

development of, and the prospects for, the Charter for Services of General

Interest (SGI) from the initial project that took off in the mid 1990s, to the White

Paper on SGI published by the European Commission (EC) in May 2004 and

the inclusion of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) in the draft

Constitution (EU 2004). The core contribution will be to provide an explanation

of the origins, development, content and techniques deployed in this innovative

supranational charter initiative, since this has received little attention in the

public management literature to date. In order to facilitate comparison, however,

this supranational charter initiative will be contrasted to a synthesis of Anglo-

Saxon charter initiatives (derived from McGuire 2002 and from primary sources)

in order to make some preliminary observations about public management

reform convergence (or divergence). The results will be organised into the four

stages suggested by Pollitt (2002a) for NPM comparative analysis; the

discursive phase, the decisional phase, the practical phase and the results

phase.

In the first section, the origins of the Charter for SGI are explained in the

context of social policy reform and legitimacy requirements in the EU from the

1990s, as well as the decision to abandon a traditional approach to public

services for the SGI paradigm. In the second section, major policy decisions to

introduce SGI as a pillar of ´social Europe´ into the Treaty of Amsterdam (EU

1997) and the draft European Constitution (EU 2004), as well as the

development of several mini-charters, are discussed. Techniques such as the

methodologies and strategies used to evaluate public service performance and

customer satisfaction are explored in the third section. Finally, a limited analysis

of the results phase is provided, focusing on how global customer satisfaction

with SGI has developed in the EU-15 and acceding countries from 1997.

,� 7+(�25,*,16�2)�7+(�&+$57(5�)25�6*,��

In this section, we examine the dominant discourses surrounding the origins

and early development of the Charter for SGI from the mid-1990s, highlighting

similarities and differences with Anglo-Saxon charter initiatives. It is argued that,

if the early efforts to establish a Charter for SGI at the European level are

almost the mirror image of those associated with the Anglo-Saxon variants in

terms of actors, concerns and discourse, the EU´s institutional response from

2000 onwards exhibited important similarities with NPM discursive practices

towards public services.

The origins of the Charter for SGI are considerably different to those of

the Anglo-Saxon variants. Anglo-Saxon charters originated from (largely) top-

down governmental decisions to render sectors that were difficult to privatise

more efficient and responsive to customers in an era of restricted budgetary

resources and growing customer expectation vis-à-vis participating in public

service delivery (McGuire 2002). Private sector managerial techniques,

including a focus on outputs, benchmarking and voice mechanisms, would

render public services more responsive and efficient. In contrast, the impetus

for the Charter for SGI sprang from increasing social, rather than economic,

tensions between the accelerated privatisation programmes that took off across

the EU from 1993, an increasingly integrated economy, especially after 1992

with the Treaty of Maastricht and the Single Market, and a recognition that the

EU had serious legitimacy problems in the eyes of its citizens (Clifton, Comín

and Díaz 2003, Eriksen and Fossum 2004). The initial calls for a Charter for

SGI were `bottom-up´ in the sense they originated from interest groups (led by

the EU social partner representing enterprises providing SGI, the CEEP) and

trade unions (led by the European Trade Union Confederation, ETUC), and

were motivated largely by distrust of the growing role of private corporations in

public services, a fear that was compounded by broader concerns about the

effects that economic integration, privatisation, liberalisation and deregulatory

policies would have upon jobs and national sovereignty. The EU´s response to

these concerns about the future of public services must be contextualised as

part of its broader effort to bolster its own legitimacy via the forging of a ´social

Europe´ (Scharpf 1999).

Public services had played an important role in the historical evolution

and institutional building of EU Member States, representing a different model

than that found in the United States (Galambos 2000) and, although there were

some differences in the regimes, there were also many common features in

terms of organisation, ownership, regulation and development. One important

difference was legal: public services were defined distinctly and occupied

different places in the legal systems and Constitutions of various countries. In

France, Italy, and Spain, citizens had enjoyed rights to public services since the

nineteenth century. In other countries, such as Germany, the Low Countries

and the UK, public services had a less marked place in the legal system, but

were associated with specific obligations connected to the provision of public

services (for instance, accessibility, quality and continuity). There were also

many similarities in public services across Europe, including the kinds of

activities that had been operated and managed by public enterprises, a

resistance to allowing market forces to govern these activities, the introduction

of similar laws on how services of public utility or of general economic interest

should be run (such as monopolies, concessions, exclusive or special laws),

and obligations on the operator. Rationales for public enterprises were,

moreover, similar across Europe, such as the existence of natural monopolies,

the lack of private initiative (particularly during reconstruction in the post war

period), the strategic nature of goods or services and social justice (Comín and

Díaz 2004).

The combined effect of ‘neoliberal’ policies at the international level and

progressive European integration posed real challenges to state intervention in

general and public enterprises in particular. Policy reform, in the direction of

privatization, deregulation, liberalisation and transnationalisation, was gradually

implemented. These policies, however, were not without their critics, who

claimed that the transformation of public services must be supervised or else

the quality of services provided to citizens may be allowed to decline:

�µ&LWL]HQV�FDQQRW�XQGHUVWDQG�ZK\�(XURSHDQ�FRQVWUXFWLRQ�UHVXOWV�LQ�WKH�UHSODFHPHQW�RI�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�LQWHUHVW�ZKLFK�IXQFWLRQ�VDWLVIDFWRULO\�E\�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�LQWHUHVW�ZKLFK�PD\�RU�PD\�QRW�IXQFWLRQ�DV�VXFFHVVIXOO\�DQG�ZKHUH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV�DUH�OHVV�FOHDUO\�GHILQHG��3ULYDWL]DWLRQ�FDQ�PDNH�LW�

LPSRVVLEOH�IRU�SROLWLFDO�FRQWURO�WR�EH�H[HUFLVHG��DQG�LW�LV�QRW�DFFHSWDEOH�WR�UHGXFH�WKH SROLWLFDO�UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV�RI�WKH�SXEOLF�DXWKRULWLHV�LQ�UHVSHFW�RI�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�LQWHUHVWV�ZKLFK�ZHUH�FUHDWHG�IRU�FLWL]HQV��7KH�SROLWLFDO�UHVSRQVLELOLW\�IRU�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�LQWHUHVW�PXVW�FRQWLQXH�WR�EH�FOHDU��LUUHVSHFWLYH�RI�WKH�VWDWXV�RI WKH�VHUYLFH�SURYLGHU�±�SULYDWH�FRPSDQ\��SXEOLF�VHFWRU�FRPSDQ\��LQWHU�PXQLFLSDO�ERG\��SXEOLF�SULYDWH�SDUWQHUVKLS�±�FKRVHQ�E\�WKH�SXEOLF�DXWKRULWLHV�WR�SURYLGH�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�LQWHUHVW�¶��&((3�DQG�(78&��������

Public service obligations, provided mostly by state-owned enterprises, had

been subject to social regulation enshrined in a Constitution. Under private

ownership, if commercial interests were pursued over and above social

interests, this could negatively affect universal service provision and continuity

of supply. As firms in the communications, transport and energy sectors

became increasingly transnational, fears were voiced by European NGOs that

basic public services that once belonged to the nation would now be owned and

controlled by distant foreign interests motivated by short-term profits (Balanyá

2000, Monbiot 2001). Moreover, a hostile takeover by a foreign agent could

threaten closure or massive redundancies, threatening the national interest.

Calls by certain EU social partners, lobbies and interest groups mounted

from the mid-1990s for public services to be protected at the local, regional,

national or supranational level, through the implementation of a service charter

or a framework directive. Most of these groups did not oppose market reforms

such as privatization and liberalization SHU�VH. They insisted, nonetheless, that

the EU needed to focus more on its efforts towards ´positive´ integration,

focusing on, for instance, social and territorial inclusion, rather than

concentrating solely on ´negative´ integration, linked to removal of trade barriers

(Scharpf 1998). Above all, it was argued, citizens should be guaranteed access

to properly working, continuously monitored services in an increasingly

integrated Europe. This should come in the form of ´bottom-up´ entitlements

enshrined in a charter. CEEP and ETUC played an active role, and jointly

prepared a proposal for a Charter for SGI, which was published in 2000.

Their charter proposal continuously linked the provision of SGI to the

project of forging a social Europe, and it insisted that all citizens required

properly functioning SGI in order to enjoy solidarity, social and territorial

inclusion, quality of life and a dynamic economy. At the heart of the proposal

was the idea that all citizens should be guaranteed the following rights to SGI by

the supranational body: equal access, an absence of discrimination in provision,

continuously working, quality and adaptable services, universal provision,

safety, fair pricing, efficiency levels that can be verified objectively,

transparency, participation and democratic control. Very little was said about

consumer rights, performance measurement techniques and voice

mechanisms, and there was absolutely no mention of downsizing,

responsiveness, contracting, user charges and other NPM buzzwords. Its focus

on establishing new rights was thus more similar to the &KDUWH�GHV�6HUYLFHV�3XEOLFV than to the Citizen´s Charter. Moreover, the Charter for SGI was

explicitly connected to the project of establishing a Charter of Fundamental

Rights, as part of the European institution building process to consolidate social

and political citizenship.

While the charter proposal was acknowledged by the EC as an important

contribution to the debate, it was also acknowledged that the CEEP/ETUC was

only part of the constituency to which it must listen before drafting legislation. It

also had to consult other important European bodies such as Parliament, the

Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, formal and

informal business lobbies, as well as the open public consultation exercise. This

typically inclusive approach is a slow and winding policy-making process, but in

this way different perspectives are considered. Critically, between 1996 and

2000, the EC shifted its discursive practice towards SGI, from an approach

focused on citizenship and rights in 1996, to an approach that fused values

resembling NPM onto European citizenship in 2000. Before this shift is

analysed, it is important to explain another vital discursive practice about public

services that was endorsed by all actors from the mid-1990s.

During the 1990s, the official terminology and conceptualisation of public

services shifted within European policy-making circles. These changes should

be understood within the general framework of the EU´s proclaimed neutrality

as regards ownership preferences, as well as the need to respond to

widespread disinterest by forging social and political integration at a time when

economic integration had been consolidated. Moreover, at the international

level, the World Trade Organisation started negotiations in service trade

through GATS from 1995. A decision was taken within the EU to phase out the

term ´public service´ in official discourse and to replace it with ´Services of

General Interest´. According to the EC (EC 1996:1), this was because the term

public services was ambiguous: originally, the term had been used in a dual

and, sometimes, contradictory way. On the one hand, it referred to the

enterprises themselves (which were usually publicly owned and managed) that

were in charge of supplying the public services. On the other hand, it was

interpreted as the actual services to which all citizens had equal rights to access

and enjoy. Since the EU must take a neutral stance on the issue of ownership,

what it wished to stress was this latter definition. It was thought that the

eradication of ´public services´ would indicate that EC policy was about the

provision of the general interest, and not about whether the provider

organisation was privately or publicly owned. The EU thus wished to show itself

as neutral, for instance, as to whether a train service was provided by a

privately or publicly owned firm: what was important was that the citizen-

traveller had a reliable, efficient and accessible train service. Providers of the

service were known as ‘service managers’. At the same time, this was also

related to the view that public services must no longer be deemed an exception

to competition rules, but seen as an integral part of a sustainable policy of

growth. Thus, an effort to start ‘re-balancing’ the competition/public services

equation was begun, in order to strive towards the so-called ‘European model of

society’ (EC 1996). Though the EC claimed it was motivated to show its

neutrality on ownership, cynics tended to interpret this new terminology as a

means of attempting to clear the way for the privatization of public enterprises,

on the road to establishing European champions.

With the word ‘public’ removed from discussion of ´public services´, two

new terms were introduced: services of general interest, and services of general

economic interest (SGEI). Where do these terms come from and what do they

mean? First, the term SGI does not actually figure in the treaties themselves

but was derived in Community practice from the term SGEI, which appears in

the Treaty of Rome (Article 90). SGI refers to all services that are considered to

be in the general interest and therefore subject to specific public-service

obligations. These include so-called ´non-market´ services, which currently

includes education, social protection, security and justice. Since the category is

fluid, the contents of ´non-market´ services are subject to change. Within this

concept is a sub-concept, general economic interest, which refers to

commercial services on which specific public obligations are placed, including

transport, energy and communication.

One of the problems is that SGI refers to two different sets of services,

being at once generic and more specific. On the one hand, it refers specifically

to the ´non-economic´ services and, on the other hand, it refers to the basket of

all services that affect the general interest, including SGEI and ´non-market´

services. Though these new terms were introduced in order to present EU

policies more clearly, to eradicate the ambiguity of ´public services´, confusion

has been caused by the fact that two terms are used to refer to three sets of

services. The new terms not only cumbersome, they are also more confusing

than the original term.

At the same time as the word ´public´ was taken out of ´public services´,

the general ´public´ was re-positioned in a novel way in the discussions about

the Charter for SGI. The ways in which this was achieved differs according to

the institutional author and evolves through time. The first EC Communication

on SGI published in 1996 tended to take a schizophrenic approach to the

general public. ´Citizens´ were positioned as the public requiring protection from

the supranational institution. Thus, social regulation of SGI was required in

order to achieve the values of a social Europe, as well as to protect decades of

diverse historical traditions and shared values. ´Consumers´ were positioned on

the outside, and were part of the changes confronting public services, along

with globalisation, technological developments, competition and a lack of public

funding. On balance, however, more attention was paid to the discourse of

citizenship than of consumers.

By 2000, the sharp contradictions between the two discourses had been

largely overcome, at least, at the discursive level. At the same time, the

influence of NPM became apparent. In the Communication on SGI (published in

2000, the project of forging a social Europe through the social regulation of SGI

to all European citizens is conflated – unproblematically – with the parallel

project directed to European consumers, which contains several key elements

of a prototype Anglo-Saxon NPM service charter. Thus, the Communication

explains how consumers of SGI must: be guaranteed a set of basic obligations

by service providers; have the right to use complaint handling and dispute

settlement mechanisms; enjoy choice of supplier; expect transparency, better

service and lower prices. Moreover, future projects include implementing SGI

performance evaluation, inclusive governance, enforced transparency and

horizontal consumer protection legislation. Unlike the Citizen´s Charter that was

criticised for replacing citizenship by consumer sovereignty in order to construct

rights (Walsh 1994, Drewry this issue), the EC approach has been to fuse two

discourses in equal proportion: first, that of European citizenship and the

construction of a social Europe; second, that of the allocation of consumer

rights with similar advantages as in the Anglo-Saxon variants. Rather than using

´consumer´ as a synonym for ´citizen´, therefore, the intention is that civic,

social and consumer rights are all offered simultaneously. This discursive hybrid

unfolded at a wider level in EU discourse from the mid-1990s. As has been

argued by social policy experts (Carter 1996, Guillén 1996), from the 1990s, the

understanding of the relationship between economic and social policy shifted.

Social policy in a broad sense was no longer perceived as being a burden on

the economy, but a necessary prerequisite for sustainable economic growth.

The project of a social Europe was thus necessary as a foundation for Europe´s

economic future. In the same way, the project to provide citizens´ entitlements

to properly functioning SGI was presented as being fully compatible with

ensuring consumers would be served by efficient, competitive, responsive

providers. The influence of NPM was highly selective in this discourse: there

was no discussion of examining the role of government, downsizing,

contracting, user charges and market mechanisms. These omissions can be

explained principally by the lack of EU competence in these fields, its duty to

construct supranational policy following the principles of subsidiarity, and the

sensitivity surrounding the sovereignty of national or local bodies in the

provision of SGI.

,,��72:$5'6�$�&+$57(5�)25�6*,��There are various common stages evident in policy decisions regarding

charterism in Australia, the UK and the US that could be summarised as:

identifying the public; the production of service charters; establishment of voice

mechanisms; launching consumer satisfaction surveys; evaluating the

performance of services; establishing Charter Mark schemes; and linking

performance to budgeting. Within these common decisions lie a great number

of differences, such as the differences between a service charter (Australia and

the UK) and a customer service plan (US); the principles stated in the charters;

the number and organizational logic of the charters established; and the

emphasis on performance management (for a synthesis of the differences see

McGuire 2002:506-7). Developments at the EU level largely correspond to

these decisional phases generally conceived, however, there are also important

differences, since there were developments in the EU that did not occur in the

Anglo-Saxon countries and vice versa. Moreover, behind apparently similar

policy decisions lie different approaches and aims, which need highlighting. In

order to reduce complexity, in this section, particular attention will be focused on

EU decisions to: formalise in legal terms citizen rights to SGEI; identify citizens

in terms of their relationship to SGI; establish mini-charters; evaluate SGEI

performance; introduce customer satisfaction surveys; and finally, coordinate

voice mechanisms.

In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon initiatives, charterism at the EU level has

had, from the outset, the aim of establishing citizen rights to SGEI as part of the

construction of a new political citizenship at the supranational level. It is

important to distinguish here between SGEI and SGI. The EU has had

historically more competence in SGEI, since they were included in the Treaty of

Rome, though in relation to competition law rather than to citizen rights. The

EU´s role in non-market SGI, such as employment and social policy, has started

to increase only in recent years via ´soft policies´ such as the Open Method of

Coordination (Scharpf 2002, Wincott 2003). This legal development to construct

rights to SGEI is an important difference dividing the Anglo-Saxon and the

supranational experiences. The promotion of SGEI was not formally considered

an EU objective until they were included in Article 16 of the Treaty of

Amsterdam (1997).ii Here, they are understood as not only to be fully

compatible with economic performance and competitiveness, but as a driving

force of the same. They are also acknowledged as vital for social and territorial

cohesion, and must be protected as such. The protocol on public service

broadcasting attached to this Treaty allowed nation states to continue

subsidising the organisation in order to fulfil the remit without affecting

competition in the community. Article 36 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

(2000) also mentions the EU ´recognises and respects´ access to SGEI in order

to promote social and territorial cohesion, and this is included in the draft

Constitution for Europe under Article II: 36. Aid to activities deemed a public

service is also protected from competition under Article III: 238 (EU 2004).

Despite this important difference, there are also many similarities with the

Anglo-Saxon experiences. The Green and White Papers on SGI, published in

2003 and 2004 respectively, represent the EC´s most serious attempt to move

towards establishing a Charter or a Directive on SGI. At the heart of the debate

in the Green Paper was the question of how best to manage and guarantee

properly functioning public services. In particular, the debate centred around

whether a single, overarching charter should be established for all SGI, or

whether a series of mini-charters organised by sectoral logic would be

preferable. From 2000, the CEEP critiqued the EC´s position towards SGI as

being DG�KRF and un-homogenous. It argued for a strong, unified, supranational

regulation to protect all citizens via entitlements to SGI. In response, the EC

offered two approaches. First, SGI could be treated as a homogenous whole by

seeking to advance the ´core´ characteristics of all services (universal service,

continuity, quality, affordability, consumer protection and so forth) through an

umbrella-type social regulatory approach. The advantage of this would be the

establishment of a robust, consistent set of public service standards to which all

citizens could understand and enjoy. The disadvantage was that, if an umbrella-

type approach to service characteristics was adopted, in the search for common

service characteristics, a ´race-to-the-bottom´ might occur, and only

characteristics that were core to all public services would be protected, leaving

out idiosyncratic characteristics of particular services. This option would entail

expanding EC competences across sensitive sectors such as social services.

The second, less radical, option set out was that the EU would continue its

historical approach to regulating SGI based on a sectoral basis. The EU had

greater competences in some SGI activities than in others: for instance, it had

established competence in the railway networks from the outset, but enjoyed

relatively little competence in the broadcasting sector. In this second option, the

EU would not need to be granted more competence, but would, therefore, only

have correspondingly limited and uneven power to intervene in order to protect

SGI. Whichever option was selected, SGI would be subject to periodic

performance evaluations. The White paper on SGI revealed how the majority of

preferences had pushed for the second option of a continued sectoral

regulatory approach. An expansion of EU competences was firmly resisted. The

principles of public service delivery were stated as: universal service, continuity,

quality, affordability, transparency, reliability, choice, safety and consumer

protection (EC 2004:4).

In comparative terms, of the charters established in Australia, the UK and

the US, the EU version is considerably closer to the UK variant than the others

in terms of the definition of public service. However, there are also important

differences. While a number of the principles in Tony Blair´s 6HUYLFH�)LUVW are

also listed in the Charter for SGI (such as quality, information and consumer

protection), the latter is more emphatic on social egalitarian principles (for

instance, it insists on ´universal service´, as opposed to the intent to ´encourage

access´ in 6HUYLFH�)LUVW). In addition, important principles in 6HUYLFH�)LUVW, such

as innovation and partnerships, are completely omitted in the EU charter, these

being matters for Member States. If the overall flavour of the New Labour

charter is ´more effective use of resources´ (McGuire 2002:517), the emphasis

of the EU version is ´equality for all in public service provision´.

Like Anglo-Saxon charters, the Charter for SGI took the form of multiple,

mini-charters. In the UK experience, some 40 national and 10,000 local charters

had been established by 2001. National charters were grouped by sector (social

security, business, culture, education, employment, environment, health,

housing, law, tax, transport and travel).iii The logic of the organisation of a small

number of mini-charters in the EU case was primarily guided by the question of

competence: detailed charters were established for electricity, postal services,

gas, water, transport, broadcasting and electronic communications.iv These

mini-charters consist of the exercise of existing competences already enjoyed

by the EU, guided by the overall principles of SGI provision.

Another decision was that of identifying the consumer and accumulating

detailed knowledge of customer satisfaction with public services. In particular

from 1997, in the light of the privatisation programme that took off across

Europe from 1993, and the gradual liberalisation of more network services

(Clifton, Comín and Díaz 2003), decisions were taken to launch a series of in-

depth, regular polls on customer satisfaction of SGEI. In total, four large-scale

surveys and two in-depth qualitative studies were commissioned between 1997

and 2004. The first survey focused in particular on Europeans´ perception of the

effects of the liberalisation of public service monopolies in regard to

improvements in price, quality, choice, universal access and consumer

protection (EC 1997). Three years later, in preparation for the Communication

on SGI (EC 2000a), a survey was commissioned on consumer satisfaction with

SGI in terms of price, access, quality, information, contracts, complaints

handling and so on for a basket of services including fixed and mobile

telephony, electricity, gas, water, postal services, urban transport, and inter-city

rail services (EC 2000b). This was repeated in 2002 (EC 2002a), and the

following year for the then candidate countries (EC 2003a). In addition, two

large qualitative studies were commissioned, on customers´ attitude to SGI (EC

2002b) and European Consumers and SGI (EC 2003b). Moreover, complaint

mechanisms at the supranational level were improved with the launch of the so-

called ´New Consumer Policy Strategy´ from 2002, which has brought about the

formation of the European Consumer Consultative Group, which brings together

representatives of all national consumer boards from 2003, and whose logo is

´Empowering Europe´s Citizens´.v A clearing house (EEJ-Net) for individuals

wishing to make a formal complaint about services was set up to provide

support and information. All these developments are very much in the line of

understanding and improving customer satisfaction in the Anglo-Saxon charter

variants, though the different emphases and techniques used and results

produced will be addressed in the next two sections.

In parallel with this new effort to understand consumer satisfaction,

progress was made with the evaluation of SGEI performance. In the spirit of the

White Paper on European governance (EC 2001b), which placed greater

emphasis on evaluation and feedback of policy and lawmaking, a report was

presented to the Laeken European Council on SGI in 2001. While it was

recognised that SGEI performance was largely up to national or local

government, the EU emphasised its competence in certain areas, particularly

the network services, which allowed it to introduce annual horizontal evaluations

in addition to sectoral evaluations, whilst providing benchmarks for the

effectiveness of areas not covered by horizontal or sectoral evaluations if

required. The Commission already conducted sectoral evaluations for maritime

transport (from 1992), postal services (1996), telecommunications (1997),

energy (2000), and railways (2001). A two-fold decision, however, was taken,

firstly, to evaluate systematically SGEI by sector on an annual basis and,

secondly, to evaluate SGEI ´horizontally´ using a ´home-grown´ complex

analysis of results from customer satisfaction surveys and focus groups, as well

as information from national governments and regulators. This horizontal

approach would consider price evolution, market concentration, entry, mergers

and acquisitions, and would focus on three main public service obligations,

pricing regulation and affordability, access, and universal obligations. The

methodology for the horizontal evaluation of SGEI was adopted in 2002 (EC

2002c), and would be used as a complement to the sectoral evaluations from

2003. This new stress on performance evaluation in the EU corresponds closely

to charterism in the Anglo-Saxon experiences, however, a different

methodological approach was taken in the EU, for reasons explained in the third

section. Finally, in terms of performance, Charter Marks were not established in

the EU, since, according to the principle of subsidiarity, each Member State

must set their own standards, objectives and strategies for SGI.

As a conclusion to the analysis of the decisional phase, the charter

initiative in the EU broadly followed Anglo-Saxon experiences by: establishing

public service principles to which customers could aspire; establishing a series

of mini-charters; launching regular surveys on customer satisfaction; and

closely monitoring public service performance.

�,,,� &86720(5�6$7,6)$&7,21�$1'�6(59,&(�3(5)250$1&(�0($685(0(17�7(&+1,48(6�

Practical convergence occurs when public sector organisations begin to work in

more similar ways. In order to compare the practical phase in the case of the

Charter for SGI, the use of two methodologies by the EU will be compared to

their Anglo-Saxon charter counterparts: techniques used to measure consumer

satisfaction and to evaluate public service performance. First, there is an

undisputed convergence of techniques to evaluate customer satisfaction. The

EC started monitoring public opinion with the Eurobarometer in 1973, using

standard survey techniques as a working tool in its policy-making process.

Since then, techniques have developed to include ´flash´ surveys (conducted

telephone to ensure rapid results), as well as more qualitative approaches

including focus group techniques. Among the organisations that conduct the

surveys is Gallup Europe, as well as the nationally based public opinion

agencies. Innovations such as the UK ´Peoples´ panel´ of 5000 randomly

selected representative citizens have not been adopted in the EU. However, the

EC commissions OPTEM to conduct focus groups involving around 700 people

across the EU-15. Convergence of the content of the questions posed to

customers about satisfaction with public services is more difficult to gauge, and

would require a systematic comparison with a representative number of surveys

and studies. However, there is evidence of a convergence of voice mechanisms

with the creation of a European Consumer Consultative Group in 2003 bringing

together national consumer associations.

Techniques deployed to evaluate public service performance show more

durable differences. The horizontal method of evaluation adopted in the EU is

evolutionary (since the definitions of SGI and SGEI are subject to shift), and

combines economic analysis of market performance, analysis of public policy

objectives, and consideration of consumer views. Annual horizontal evaluations

have been used to complement sectoral evaluations of air and railway

transportation, local and regional public transport, electricity, gas, postal

services and telecommunications since 2003. This methodology was developed

by the DG Internal Market in consultation with the CEEP and the Initiative for

Public Service Utilities in Europe (ISUPE). A cross-section consideration of

single topic or theme (such as productivity, cohesion or access) common to

most or all network services is examined across the territory. Some of the main

challenges faced by the evaluators are that there are gaps in statistical

information about service quality indicators across the EU; there is limited

experience in the horizontal evaluation of these services; and cross-country

evaluation is difficult since policy objectives vary according to the Member

State. Moreover, public policy objectives can be achieved via different means

(access may be ensured using electricity or gas for instance). Horizontal

evaluations are not, therefore, full evaluations in the traditional sense, and they

are not used to produce recommendations for specific sectors. Instead, it is left

up to Member States to evaluate public service performance in the last

instance.vi The horizontal methodology employed by the EU is therefore not a

case of practical convergence. It was not possible to use a single benchmarking

methodology due to the diverse practices and definitions of universal service

obligations across countries. It would have not been acceptable, politically, to

use a best practice model ´top-down´ for all countries. Efforts are being made,

nonetheless, to work with regulators and network operators to develop and

foster common criteria. In some cases, such as postal services, it has been

possible to develop common service quality criteria using European

standardisation bodies, but this is an exception to the rule.

�,9��&86720(5�6$7,6)$&7,21�$1'�6(59,&(�3(5)250$1&(�5(68/76���The analysis of the convergence or divergence of performance is complex, not

only because it is difficult to establish causality between NPM reform and

performance results, but also, ironically, because there is a scarcity of results

analysis in the public management reform literature for comparison. The

challenge is compounded when comparing results across diverse countries that

follow various reform aims in public policy priorities, and have inherited different

public sectors. In the case of the Charter for SGI, to these methodological

problems must be added the fact that the reform of public services is still in its

early stages. The EU only started to consider customer satisfaction with public

services in a consistent way from 1997. Moreover, to the disappointment of

some social partners, the decision to establish the Directive or Charter for SGI

has been postponed in the face of EU enlargement (EC 2004).

In this section, a limited analysis of convergence will be made

considering customer satisfaction levels of SGI broken down by sector and

country. Within country trends, special attention will be paid to the UK, the

European pioneer of NPM reform, in terms of comparison with other countries.

In addition, EU-15 results will be compared with those of EU-25. The five main

surveys on SGI satisfaction are analysed. The first in-depth survey on customer

satisfaction with public services was the Eubarometer Poll 47.1 (EU 1997). This

was designed to focus on customer perceptions on the effects of liberalisation

and privatisation. From 2000, the EU took great strides to use similar

methodological approaches so as to make data more easily comparable. The

Eurobarometer 53 (EC 2000) and 58 (EC 2002) are in-depth surveys dedicated

to the analysis of customer satisfaction with SGI in the EU-15. Another survey

conducted in the Candidate Country European Barometer (EC 2003a) uses

similar methodologies and is thus directly comparable. EC (2000) measures

customer satisfaction with SGI using access, price, quality, information, and

contract indicators. Global results are broken down into: electricity, gas, water,

fixed telephony, mobile telephony, postal services, urban transport and

railways. EC (2002) and EC (2003a) surveys do likewise using identical

methodology, but a new indicator is added, customer service. Finally, the EC

(2003d) survey returns to many of the questions of the EC (1997).

The rest of this section analyses what can be learnt about the evolution

of customer satisfaction with SGI in the EU from 1997. It is beyond the aims of

the analysis here to attempt to establish causality between customer

satisfaction levels with the extent and spread of NPM and charterism across the

EU. Instead, the aim is more modest, and takes as a general assumption that,

from 1997, efforts at the supranational level have been led by ambitions to

clarify and strengthen the role of SGI by increasing customer satisfaction in

clearly defined areas: access, quality, price, information, contracts, complaint

handling mechanisms and customer service. Thus, the intention is to establish

to what extent European citizens reveal growing levels of satisfaction, and to

highlight country and sectoral trends. The analysis will be divided into two parts.

In the first part, customers´ global satisfaction with SGI will be compared as it

has evolved in the EU-15 (1997, 2000 and 2002). This will then be broken down

into aspects of service: price, quality, information, contracts and customer

service. Results for the EU-15 will then be compared with the corresponding

data from the candidate countries (EC 2003a). The second part will focus on

complaints handling, again comparing the EU-15 in 2000 and 2002 with the

candidate countries in 2003.vii Finally, the relative importance of quality or price

is determined for EU-15 customers by sector.

The Eurobarometer opinion poll N° 47.1 posed questions about citizens´

perceptions about the opening of public service monopolies to competition.

Sectors included were gas, water, fixed telephony, postal services, air transport,

urban transport, inter-urban transport by coach, rail transportation and

television. At the heart of the poll was the desire to ascertain consumers´

perceptions of service quality, the effects of liberalisation (particularly on price

and quality), and the expectation about minimum service. The first main finding

is striking sectoral differences: whilst questions about SGI satisfaction reveal

that 81% of EU citizens believed electricity distribution was of a good quality,

only half that amount thought the same about public transport and railways

respectively, as shown in Table 1. Differences in countries, as well as large

percentages of ´don´t know´ (dk) answers in certain countries for particular

sectors (such as gas in Greece, Finland and Sweden where availability was

limited) should be borne in mind when interpreting results. Unfortunately,

because the survey allowed those surveyed three possible answers (good, bad

or neither good nor bad) it is difficult to compare these results with the following

polls (where those surveyed were offered four possible options). Countries

could be divided into three blocks: those with perception levels below the EU

average, namely Greece (GR), Italy (I), Portugal (P) and Spain (E); those above

the EU average including Austria (A), Luxemburg (LU), Netherlands (NL),

Finland (FI) and Denmark (DK); and those in the middle ground, namely

Belgium (B), France (F), the United Kingdom (UK), Germany (D), Ireland (IR)

and Sweden (S). Despite an early start and prolonged privatisation process,

and the liberalisation of many public utility monopolies, the UK does not exhibit

significant differences in relation to the EU average. Indeed, the highest result

was for postal services, which, in 1997, was a public corporation subject to

NPM reform, whilst the lowest quality perceptions were for railways and urban

transports, where liberalisation was relatively advanced.

7DEOH����3HUFHSWLRQ�RI�4XDOLW\�RI�6*,��(8���DYHUDJH�RI�VDWLVIDFWLRQ�DQG�FRXQWU\�GLIIHUHQWLDOV���������

(8 *5 , 3 ( % ) 8. ' ,5 6 $ /8 1/ ), '.(OHFWULFLW\�GLVWULEXWLRQ� �� -28 -13 -17 -7 -1 1 4 2 15 13 14 7 16 15 16

*DV�GLVWULEXWLRQ� �� GN� -6 -22 -3 -3 3 10 9 -14 GN 4 5 30 GN 4

:DWHU�GLVWULEXWLRQ� �� -24 -13 -15 -2 1 -11 -6 13 1 28 23 17 28 28 27

)L[HG�WHOHSKRQ\�� �� -40 -9 -16 -4 -4 6 7 2 12 17 4 10 6 20 5

3RVWDO�VHUYLFHV� �� -6 -32 -1 -6 2 7 22 -3 28 -2 9 26 29 5 30

3XEOLF�XUEDQ�WUDQVSRUW� �� -19 -21 -16 9 -2 1 -3 7 7 17 16 27 11 25 28

,QWHUFLW\�UDLOZD\� �� -6 -25 -6 6 6 1 -8 9 16 1 17 26 17 33 37

�� -21 -17 -13 -1 -0 1 4 6 9 11 12 17 20 20 21

Source: Elaborated by the authors using Eurobarometer 47.1 (1997) data.

Another aim of the poll was to analyse the question of the impact of

liberalisation of the SGI: 61% of Europeans were aware of the opening to

competition, and 70% of them considered it a good thing in regard both to

service quality and price. However, the vast majority claimed they had not yet

witnessed improvements in quality, choice or customers´ interest protection. As

regards service price, between 89% and 94% of consumers thought they still

had not enjoyed price cuts in electricity, gas, water, railways or postal services.

Only in telephone services was this figure lower (73%). Here, the difference with

the UK is striking: only 31% of UK citizens claimed not to have noticed price

cuts in telephony. In the electricity and gas sectors, whilst EU average results

claiming no price cuts were 89% and 91% respectively, the corresponding

figures for the UK were 76% on both occasions. These differences suggest the

impact of sectoral reforms in the UK on telephony and energy, though the UK

results for water, railways and postal services were very similar to the EU

average.

7DEOH� ��� &LWL]HQ� 6DWLVIDFWLRQ� ZLWK� 6*,�� (8��� DYHUDJH� RSLQLRQ� RQ�4XDOLW\�� 3ULFH��,QIRUPDWLRQ�� &RQWUDFWV� DQG� 2YHUDOO� LQ� ����� DQG� ����� DQG� (8� ��� QHZ� 0HPEHU�6WDWHV�LQ������

� (8���� (8����10�

Quality = Q Price = P Information = I Contracts = C 2YHUDOO� �2� Q P I C 2�

����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ������

(OHFWULFLW\�� 92 91 56 55 75 73 68 68 73 72 95 ��� 82 67 72

*DV�� 87 86 56 55 71 69 65 65 70 69 91 ��� 81 67 72

:DWHU�� 89 89 55 56 72 72 67 66 71 71 90 ��� 82 68 73

)L[HG�WHOHSKRQ\�� 91 90 50 51 76 75 63 64 70 70 84 ��� 75 51 60

0RELOH�WHOHSKRQ\� 81 84 40 44 64 67 55 59 60 64 76 ��� 66 53 58

3RVWDO�VHUYLFHV� 80 82 67 68 79 78 70 70 74 75 87 ��� 88 73 77

8UEDQ�WUDQVSRUW� 66 66 49 47 70 68 59 57 61 60 70 ��� 77 61 64

,QWHUFLW\�UDLOZD\� 61 59 41 38 66 62 55 51 56 53 58 ��� 70 54 55

&RUUHODWLRQ�LQGH[�� Quality Price Information Q 3� I

Price = P ����� ����� �����

Information = I ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� �����

Contracts = C ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� ����� �����

6RXUFH��&RPSLOHG�E\�DXWKRUV�EDVHG�RQ�(XUREDURPHWHU����������(XUREDURPHWHU�����������DQG�&&(%�(XUREDURPHWHU����������

Comparing overall satisfaction rates with SGI in 2000 and 2002 in the EU-15

(calculated using the four indicators quality, price, information provided and

contracts), in 2002, postal services led (75%), followed by electricity, water,

fixed telephones and gas distribution (69%). Of these four highest performing

SGI, there were no significant differences in the average of quality, price,

information or contract satisfaction between 2000 and 2002 as shown in Table

2. Moreover, the ranking of satisfaction of quality is identical as in 1997 (bearing

in mind the 1997 option ´neither good nor bad´ that is not included in the

following surveys). The poorest performers were urban and rail transportation

and mobile telephony, but with some important differences. Firstly, not only did

intercity rail service perception lag far behind the other sectors, with just only

half of customers expressing their overall satisfaction, satisfaction levels

actually worsened, falling 3%. Urban transport faired less badly, with

satisfaction rates falling to 60% in the same period. Mobile telephony, mostly

provided by private operators, omitted in the 1997 survey, was included in 2000

and 2002 and, though it was still a low performer in 2002, saw overall

satisfaction rates increase from 60% to 64%. While satisfaction with the quality

of mobile telephony was higher than that for postal services, however,

satisfaction with price, information provided and contracts offered was quite low.

The 2000 and 2002 polls are not only homogenous in methodology, permitting

coherent sectoral and country comparisons, they also show consistent results

about customers´ opinions about different SGI as revealed in the correlation

index between criteria (quality, price, information and contracts). This indicator

was most significant between price, contracts and information, and between

information and contracts, suggesting user concern about consumer rights.

Overall satisfaction rates with SGI were very similar in acceding countries in

2003. Postal services, electricity, water, gas, urban transport and railways were

rated somewhat higher in these countries, while fixed and mobile telephony

generated slightly higher satisfaction levels in the EU-15 (EC 2003a:6).

Disaggregating results by price, customers were asked to state whether

they believed the price they paid for SGI was fair (satisfied), unfair or excessive

(unsatisfied). Postal services performed best, with highest satisfaction levels

(68%) and lowest dissatisfaction levels (27%) in 2002. Satisfaction rates of

around 50% were shown for fixed telephony, electricity, gas, water, and urban

transport, while mobile telephony and railways scored 44% and 38%

respectively. In comparative terms, telephony (fixed and mobile), water and

postal services improved between 2000 and 2002, with increases in customer

satisfaction and decreases in dissatisfaction rates. The most dramatic

improvement was in the mobile phone sector, which improved satisfaction

levels by 4% from 2000, while unsatisfied customers dropped by 2%, reflecting

technological change and price cuts. Railways and gas supply were ambiguous,

exhibiting both declining satisfaction (-3% and -1% respectively) and

dissatisfaction rates (-2% in both cases) from 2000. Urban transport fared

worst, with falling satisfaction rates (-3%) and increasing dissatisfaction (+1%).

In general, EU-15 customers are more satisfied with the value-for-money of

SGEI than consumers in accession countries. The most important difference is

in telephony, where 51% and 44% of customers claim that the price is unfair in

fixed and mobile phone services (CCEB 2003:3). Indeed, price satisfaction is

the main variable biasing the overall satisfaction rates in the 10 New Member

States, indicating the proportionally larger effort households in these regions

have to make to afford SGI.

As regards service quality, customers could claim SGI provided

satisfactory (very good, fairly good) or unsatisfactory (fairly bad, very bad)

services. Most customers were satisfied with SGI, with electricity (92%) and

fixed telephones (91%) in the lead. Mobile telephones, gas, water, postal

services all scored over 80%, while urban transport scored 66% and railway

services 61%. Dissatisfaction rates were led by railways (26%) and urban

transport (24%). Comparing the evolution of customer satisfaction with quality

from 2000 to 2002, mobile phones and postal services exhibit positive trends

with improvements in satisfaction and no change or slight falls in dissatisfaction.

Slightly negative trends are seen in fixed telephony, electricity and gas, with a

1% drop in satisfaction combined with a 1% increase in dissatisfaction.

Railways, again, are ambiguous, with a 2% drop in both satisfaction and

dissatisfaction levels. Overall, quality satisfaction levels in the acceding

countries were very similar to those in the EU-15 (2002), with sectoral

differences whereby telephony (both fixed and mobile) received less satisfaction

levels and electricity, gas and urban transport more favourable opinions than in

the EU-15.

On average, 70% of customers claim the information provided by SGI is

clear, with rail services again attracting the lowest results (62%). Though the

overall results are quite high, nearly all sectors have deteriorated (-1% in fixed

telephones and postal services, -2% in electricity, gas and urban transport, and

-4% in railways). Water alone is unchanged. In contrast, only mobile phones

improved customer satisfaction rates by 3%. Dissatisfaction rates show no or

slight change for all sectors. Overall, consumers in the EU-10 acceding

countries were more satisfied with the information they received from service

providers.

Are SGI contracts fair? Postal services (70%) and electricity (68%) lead

satisfaction rates, while around two in three customers were satisfied with

water, gas and fixed telephony. Satisfaction with urban transport and mobile

phones were under 60%, while only half of customers thought railway contracts

were fair. Dissatisfaction rates were unchanged for gas, water, postal services

and urban transport, but increased by 1% for fixed and mobile phones,

electricity and railway services. Mobile phone contracts failed to satisfy the

largest portion of customers (27%). Levels of satisfaction with contracts are

quite similar in the acceding countries, with the exception of fixed phones,

where one third of consumers are dissatisfied, and only half satisfied (EC

2003a: 10).

Are SGEI staff polite, efficient, and available? Customers could indicate

they were satisfied (very good, fairly good) or unsatisfied (fairly bad, very bad)

with customer service. This was a new category introduced in 2002, so

comparisons cannot be drawn with previous years. There is a clear

sectoral/country logic to the replies. Around 70% of customers were satisfied

with over half of services (fixed and mobile telephony, electricity, water and

postal services). Transport and rail services had satisfaction rates of around

50%. Since customer service improvement is one of the aims of service

charters, it is also relevant to consider country differences. There is a consistent

trend that, the UK, Ireland, Finland, Luxemburg and Belgium achieve customer

service satisfaction rates well over the average. Conversely, Italy consistently

attracts most dissatisfaction (EC 2002a).

Customer satisfaction levels with complaints handling (filtered by those

who lodged a complaint to during the previous year) are compared in 2000 and

2002 (EC 2002a). Customers could describe complaint handling as being

performed very well/fairly well (satisfied), or fairly badly/very badly (unsatisfied).

Three main groups emerge in the results: providers where complaints levels are

stable and handling is perceived to have improved; providers with more

complaints but increased levels of satisfaction with complaints handling; and

providers where complaints are stagnant but levels of handling satisfaction are

down. In the first group are mobile telephony, gas and water, with stable

complaint levels of 5%, 2% and 2.5% respectively. Of the three providers, gas

exhibited a huge increase in customer satisfaction levels (from 38% to 51%),

while mobile telephony and water showed more modest increases (from 50% to

52% and from 49% to 52% respectively). Postal services also fall roughly into

this first category, having slightly increased complaint levels (from 5% to 6%),

but also improvements in complaint handling satisfaction (45% to 47%). In the

second group are electricity, urban transport and rail, where complaint levels

were stable, but complaint handling satisfaction fell. In the third group, fixed

telephony saw increased complaints as well as falls in levels of complaint

handling satisfaction. When the EU-15 results on complaints handling (EU

2002) are compared with the equivalent data on in accession countries (2003)

there are two main findings. Firstly, the level of complaints by sector is very

similar to in the EU-15. Secondly, there is little significant difference evident

between this indicator of customer satisfaction by sector. Indeed, on average,

the candidate countries score marginally better than the EU-15. In the words of

the survey, the general level of satisfaction with complaints handling across the

whole of the EU is ´rather mediocre´ (EC 2003a: 28).

The most recent survey on SGI in the EU-15 interviewed consumers by

telephone about SGI quality (EU 2003d). The survey was conducted by the

Internal Market DG, rather than the Health and Consumer Protection DG, who

performed the previous surveys. The concerns here were similar to

Eurobarometer 47.1 (EC 1997), that is, to evaluate the quality and performance

of public services in the aftermath of opening to competition, and citizens´ rights

vis-à-vis accessibility and public service obligations. Services included were

identical to those in the surveys from 2002 (but excluded water and air

transportation, which had been treated in 1997).

7DEOH���&LWL]HQ�6DWLVIDFWLRQ�ZLWK�6*,��(8���DYHUDJH�RSLQLRQ�RQ�4XDOLW\��3ULFH��2YHUDOO�6DWLVIDFWLRQ�DQG�1DWLRQDO�'LIIHUHQWLDOV���2FWREHU�1RYHPEHU�������

4XDOLW\�

3UL

FH�

(

8� ,� (� *5� 6� 3� '� $� ,5(� )� 1/� 8.� '.� %� ),� /�

(OHFWULFLW\�� 47 46 ��� -6 -4 -13 -15 -7 2 5 5 7 5 3 3 1 -2 5

*DV�� 39 36 ��� -2 -4 1 -1 4 3 3 4 3 -4 4 2

)L[HG�WHOHSKRQ\� 44 51 ��� -19 -10 -5 5 -3 6 -5 3 -1 8 11 7 4 5 9

0RELOH�WHOHSKRQ\� 43 43 ��� -3 -11 6 4 5 6 5 -4 -6 2 5 0 5 2 4

3RVWDO�VHUYLFHV� 65 27 ��� -10 -2 5 -5 3 1 -3 7 -4 11 8 9 -8 5 10

8UEDQ�WUDQVSRUW� 51 34 ��� -11 -5 -7 8 0 -1 3 -7 7 -2 4 5 10 11 9

,QWHUFLW\�UDLOZD\� 49 34 ��� 1 2 10 10 17 -8 -1 3 8 -8 -8 12 19 22 12

48 39 ��� -7 -5 -2 -0 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7

Source: Elaborated by authors using Eurobarometer flash "/D�TXDOLWp�GHV�VHUYLFHV" (2003).

The main concern of this survey was to establish the relative importance of

aspects of service quality to consumers, focusing on quality and price, given

that quality and price were not highly correlated, as has been shown in Table 2.

Table 3 shows that, in general, quality is more important than price in the EU-

15. This overall result was biased by postal services, urban transport and

intercity trains (all with the lowest overall levels of customer satisfaction). Price

was only more important than quality in fixed telephony, while the importance of

price versus quality is insignificant for mobile telephony, electricity and gas. As

a conclusion, it could be said that price is more important than quality in those

countries with a higher overall level of service satisfaction (France, Denmark,

United Kingdom, Finland), but quality is more important where there is a lower

level of satisfaction (Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece).

As a conclusion, it can be said that the degree of dispersion in

satisfaction levels with SGI between countries and between sectors have

decreased (in terms of standard deviations), reflecting the development of a set

consistent opinions about SGI from 1997 to 2003. Analysis of customer

satisfaction with SGI also shows important differences depending on the sector

in question. Some sectors, such as electricity, gas, water, fixed telephony and

postal services, receive relatively high satisfaction indicators, which have

remained stable throughout the period. In these sectors, NPM reform and

deregulation is also more advanced. Mobile telephony, largely operated by

private operators within the SGI regulatory framework, showed significant

improvements in satisfaction levels from 2000, particular regarding quality

rather than price, reflecting dramatic technological change. For the remaining

sectors, public operation is still dominant, and NPM reforms are less advanced.

In terms of satisfaction, however, there are different trends: postal services

receive high levels of satisfaction, whilst the railway and urban transport sectors

continue to be problematic, and in continuous decline.

There is evidence of increasing convergence in customers´ opinions (as

expressed in the pattern of standard deviation by country and sector), the main

exceptions being Sweden, where there is a deterioration, particularly in

electricity and postal services, and Belgium, where there are improvements in

all sectors bar postal services. These countries apart, there are the following

trends. First, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal exhibit relatively

negative performance, and do not improve significantly as regards the EU

average (Greece and Portugal improved by two positions in country ranking and

Germany fell by two positions from 1997). In these countries, the low level of

SGI satisfaction is more concerned about quality than price. Second, Denmark,

Finland, Ireland, Luxemburg, the Netherlands and the UK all show improved

performance, despite repeated negative performance in urban transport and

intercity railways in the UK and the Netherlands. Third, departing from an

intermediate position in 1997, the UK has caught up with high performing

countries. The most important sectors in this transformation were fixed

telephony and postal services. Finally, although the comparisons with the new

EU-10 Member States are restricted to one poll, there are similar satisfaction

levels as in the EU-15. The main factor of deviation is price, particularly in the

eight transition economies with the lowest income per inhabitant, indicating

problems of affordability rather than quality, information or contracts.

&21&/86,216�$1'�&+$//(1*(6�)25�6835$1$7,21$/�5(*8/$7,21�2) 6*,���From the mid-1990s, it has been broadly accepted that policies of privatization,

liberalization and integration in the single market must be countered by a project

to foster social and political integration. Efforts towards a regulatory framework

for SGI is an important part of these efforts, and there is consensus on the need

to provide high quality, accessible and affordable SGI to enhance quality of life

for all citizens, as well as to ensure enterprises are competitive and the

environment is protected. SGI, understood as one of the pillars of the

´European model of society´ (EC 2004b), was mentioned on four occasions in

the draft European Constitution. There is also a marked progression from the

first mention of SGEI in the Treaty of Rome; SGI are now understood as a

means towards social cohesion and must be supported as such as long as

competition rules are not hindered.

Comparing the EU Charter for SGI with other charter initiatives has

highlighted some of its vital differences. While its origins were based on

discursive practices quite distinct from a NPM prototype charter, the debate

being sparked by a distrust of private business ambitions, not in reverence of

them, from 2000, EC discourse approximated much NPM discourse, though

competence and subsidiarity were key in shaping and limiting its influence. The

result was a hybrid discourse resembling both the French and UK charters,

fusing simultaneously the dual concerns of citizens´ entitlements and

consumers´ rights. Decisions to evaluate public services and measure

customer satisfaction were highly similar in the EU and Anglo-Saxon

approaches, again, shaped by questions of competence. In the practical phase

(which is ongoing), techniques selected to evaluate performance differed

importantly, and had diverse ends. Finally, customer satisfaction as measured

through standard deviation is converging through country and sector, though

there is no straightforward explanation to be found either in NPM in general or

service charters in particular. Supranational regulation of SGI remains one of

the EU´s most important and imminent challenges if it genuinely wishes to

construct a supranational political and social citizenship.

5()(5(1&(6

Aharoni, Y. (1986) The Evolution and Management of State-Owned Enterprises.

Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.

Arnt Aune, J. (2001) Selling the Free Market. The Guilford Press.

Aucoin, P. (1990) ‘Administrative Reform in Public Management’, Governance,

3(2), pp. 115-137.

Balanyá, B. HW DO� (2000) Europe Inc: Regional and Global Restructuring and the

Rise of Corporate Power. London: Pluto Press.

Bauby, P. (2004) ´On Services of General Interest´. Speech at XIVth CEEP

Congress 16-18 June.

Behrens, P. (2001) ‘Public Services and the Internal Market: An analysis of the

Commission’s Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe’.

European Business Organisation Law, 2 pp 469-492.

Bresser-Pereira, L., (2002) Democracy and Public Management Reform,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carter, C. (1996) ‘The European Union social policy debate’ in P. Barbour (ed)

The European Union Handbook, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers.

CEEP (2004) Service of General Interest: A Chance for an Integrated Europe,

XVIth Congress, Leipzig, 16-18 June, Leipzig.

CEEP (2002) Declaration on Services of General Interest for the European

Council of Barcelona.

CEEP (2000) 2SLQLRQ��:KDW�(XURSHDQ�HYDOXDWLRQ�RI�WKH�SHUIRUPDQFH�RI�WKH�VHUYLFHV�RI�JHQHUDO�HFRQRPLF�LQWHUHVW"

CEEP (1995) Europa: Competencia y servicio público�

CEEP (1984) Public Enterprise in the European Economic Community�

&((3 DQG�(78&��������Proposal for a Charter for Services of General Interest.

http://www.ceep.org/en/documents/ceep_projects_studies/charterSGI_En.pdf

Christensen, T and Laegreid, P.(eds) (2002) New Public Management.

Aldershot: Ashgate.

Cheung, A. (1997), Understanding public-sector reforms: Global trends and

diverse agendas. International Review of Administrative Sciences 63(4) pp.

435-57.

Clarke, D.(2000) ´Citizens, Charters and Public Service Reform in France and

Britain´. Government and Opposition. 35(2) pp. 152-169.

Clifton, J., Comín, F. and Díaz Fuentes, D. (2004) Reconceptualising Public

Services after Integration: States, Markets and Entitlements in the European

Union, W-2004/8, Bruges, United Nations University CRIS.

Clifton, J., Comín, F. and Díaz Fuentes, D. (2003) Privatization in the European

Union. Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Collins, R. (1994) ‘Unity in Diversity? The European Single Market in

Broadcasting and the Audiovisual 1982-92’. Journal of Common Market

Studies. 32:1.

Comín, F. and Díaz Fuentes, D. (2004) Las empresas públicas en Europa,

Síntesis, Madrid.

Common, Richard (1998) ‘Convergence and transfer: a review of the

globalisation of new public management’ International Journal of Public Sector

Management 11:6, pp. 440-448.

Drewry, G. (2003)´Citizen´s Charters – Service Quality Chameleons´ Keynote

speech presented at the International Symposium on Service Charters and

Customer Satisfaction in Public Services, City University of Hong Kong 8-9

December.

EBU (2001) Comments on the Communication from the Commission on the

application of State aid rules to public service broadcasting. www.ebu.org last

accessed 20 June 2004.

EC (2004) White Paper on Services of General Interest

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/services_general_interest/docs/c

om2004_374_en.pdf

EC (2003a) CCEB Eurobarometer European Consumers and services of

general interest.

EC (2003b) European Consumers and Services of General Interest� Qualitative

Study.

EC (2003c) Green Paper on Services of General Interest.

http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/gpr/2003/com2003_0270en01.pdf

EC (2003d). Flash Eurobarometer 150: La qualité des services.

EC (2002a) Eurobarometer 58: Consumers´ opinions about Services of General

Interest.

EC (2002b) Etude sur les services d´interet economique general aupres des

citoyens des 15 pays.

EC (2002c). Methodological note for the horizontal evaluation of services of

general economic interest COM (2002)331.

EC (2001a) Communication from the Commission on the application of State

aid rules to public service broadcasting.

EC (2001b) White Paper on Governance.

EC (2000a) Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe.

EC (2000b) Les Européens et les services d´intérêt généraux.

EC (1997) Eurobarometer 47.0: L´Europe des Consummateurs, Les Citoyens

face a l´ouverture a la concurrence des monopoles de services public.

EC (1996) Communication on Services of General Interest in Europe.

EPSU, ETF, ETUCE (2003) Services of General Interest and the European

Convention.

Eriksen, E. O., and Fossum, J. E. (2004) ´Europe in search of legitimacy:

Strategies of Legitimation Assessed´, International Political Science Review,

25(4). 435-459.

EU (2004) Official Journal of the European Union, 2004/C310/01, vol 47, 16

December 2004, Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2004:310:SOM:EN:HTML

Falconer, P. and Ross, K. (1999) ´Citizen´s Charters and Public Service

Provision: lessons from the UK experience´. International Review of

Administrative Science, 65, 339-351.

Fossum, J. E. (2003), The European Union: In search of an identity. European

Journal of Political Theory. 2(3) 319-340.

Flynn, N. and Strehl, F. (eds) (1996) Public Sector Management in Europe.

London: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Gonzalo, J. A, Pina, V. and Torres, L. (2003) ´Objectives, techniques and

valuation of state-owned companies in privatization processes´ Public

Management Review 5:2 pp 177-196.

Grillo, R. (1997) ´Discourses of Development The View from Anthropology´. In

eds. R. Grillo and R. L. Stirrat Discourses of Development, Anthropological

Perspectives, Oxford International Publications.

Gruening, G. (2001) ´Origin and theoretical basis of New Public Management´,

International Public Management Journal 4.1-25.

Guillén, A. M. (1996) ´Citizenship and social policy in Spain: the reformulation of

the Francoist Welfare State.´ South European Society and Politics 1:2 pp 253-

271.

Héritier, A. (2001) ´Market integration and social cohesion: the politics of public

services in European regulation.´ Journal of European Public Policy, 8:5 pp

825-852.

Héritier, A. (2002) ´Public-interest services revisited´. Journal of European

Public Policy 9:6 pp. 995-1019.

Hood, C. (2000) The Art of the State. Culture, Rhetoric and Public

Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- (1996) ´Exploring variations in public management reform of the 1980s´.

In Bekke, H., Perry, J., and Toonen, T. (eds) Civil Service Systems in

Comparative Perspective. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

- (1991) ´A Public Management for all Seasons?´ Public Administration,

69:1 pp 3-19.

Kaul, I. (2003) ´Redefining Public Goods: Why, How and to What Effects?´

Paper presented at the UNU-CRIS International Conference on Global Public

Goods and Regional Integration. UNU Bruges, November 20-21.

Kickert, W. (ed) (1997) Public Management and Administrative Reform in

Western Europe. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

- and Beck Jørgensen, T. (1995), ´Introduction: Managerial Reform Trends

in Western Europe´. International Review of Administrative Sciences 61 pp.

499-510.

Lane, J. E. (1997) The Public Sector: Concepts, Models and Approaches.

London/Newbury Park/New Delhi: Sage.

- (2000) New Public Management. London/New York: Routledge.

Mathiasen, D. (1999) The New Public Management and its Critics. International

Public Management Journal 2(1) pp. 90-111.

McGuire, A. (2002)´Service Charters – Global convergence or national

divergence? A comparison of initiatives in Australia, the United Kingdom and

the United States´ Public Management Review. 4:1 pp 493-524.

McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E. (eds) (2002) New Public

Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London and New York:

Routledge.

Monbiot, G. (2001) The Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. Pan:

London.

Newman, J. (2002)´The New Public Management, modernization and

institutional change: disruptions, disjunctures and dilemmas´ in McLaughlin, K.,

Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E. (eds) (2002) New Public Management: Current

Trends and Future Prospects. London and New York: Routledge.

Nikos, M. (2001) Trends of Administrative Reform in Europe: Towards

Administrative Convergence? International Public Management Review 2(2) pp.

39-53.

ODS/BDP/UNDP. (1999) Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the

21st Century: Questions and Answers.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, E. (1992). Reinventing Government. Reading MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, S. and McLaughlin, K. (2002) The New Public Management in

Context in K. McLaughlin, S. Osborne and E. Ferlie (eds), New Public

Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London and New York:

Routledge.

Parker, D. ed. (1998) Privatization in the EU: theory and policy perspectives.

London, New York: Routledge.

Peters, G. (1997) ´A North American perspective on administrative

modernisation in Europe´. In Kickert, W. (ed.) Public Management and

Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Plassmann, R. (2003) ‘A positive perspective for the future of services of

general interest in Europe’. www.ceep.org last accessed 24 June 2004.

Pollitt, C. (2002a) ´Clarifying Convergence. Striking similarities and durable

differences in public management reform. Public Management Review, Vol 4(1)

pp. 471-492.

- (2002b) ´The New Public Management in international perspective: an

analysis of impacts and effects´ in McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E.

(eds) (2002) New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects.

London and New York: Routledge.

- (2000) Is the Emperor in his underwear? Public Management 2(2) pp.

181-199.

- and Bouckaert, G. (2004, second edition) Public management reform - a

comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.

PUMA (Public Management Service Public Management Committee) (1997) In

Search of Results: Performance Management Practices. Paris: OECD.

- (1996) Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives. Paris: OECD.

Scharpf, F. (2002). The European Social Model: Coping with the challenges of

diversity. Journal of Common Market Studies. 40(4), 645-670.

- (1999) Governing in Europe" Oxford: Oxford University Press.

- (1998), ´Negative and Positive Integration in the Political Economy of

European Welfare States´ in Martin Rhodes and Yves Mény (eds.) The Future

of European Welfare. A New Social Contract" Basingstoke, London: Macmillan

Press Ltd., pp. 157-177.

Schedler, K. and Proeller, I. ´The New Public Management: a perspective from

mainland Europe´ in McLaughlin, K., Osborne, S. and Ferlie, E. (eds) (2002)

New Public Management: Current Trends and Future Prospects. London and

New York: Routledge.

Schiavo, L. (2000)´Quality Standards in the Public Sector: Differences between

Italy and the UK in the Citizen´s Charter Initiative´. Public Administration 78(3),

679-698.

i This ´universalist´ debate was also important in the literature on privatisation (for a critique of the so-called ´British

paradigm´ see Clifton, Comín and Díaz 2003).

ii. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) Article 16 reads: ‘Without prejudice to Article 73, 86 and 87, and given the place

occupied by services of general economic interest in the shared values of the Union as well as their role in promoting

social and territorial cohesion, the Community and Member States, each within their respective powers and within the

scope of application of this Treaty, shall take care that such services operate on the basis of principles and conditions,

which enable them to fulfil their missions’.

iii. See http://archive.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/index/list.htm#transport

iv. For a list of regulatory directives see EC 2004 annex 3.

v. See http://europa.eu.int/pol/cons/overview_en.htm.

vi. Interview with Dr. Francisco Caballero Sanz, Head of Unit, Economic Analysis and Evaluation, DG Internal Market,

18 February 2005.

vii.Once access is analysed, this is then filtered in all remaining results. Most results do not sum 100% because of the

´don’t know´ replies.